undefined | Better HN

0 pointsroenxi5y ago0 comments

The anonymous function change is probably a (small) mistake.

    function(x) {x + 1}

is already logically equivalent to and from some perspectives an arguable syntax improvement on

    \(x) x + 1

Giving everyone two ways of doing one thing just means the tutorials will be fragmented and beginners even more confused.

Tierney mentioned that tidyverse found function(x) too verbose and uses fomula syntax. Given how tidyverse often uses the "y ~ x" formula notation, this might actually be picking up deficiencies in R's macro system rather than in the function notation and the problem got misdagnosed.

0 comments

kgwgk5y ago

Having the option of writing

    \(x) x+1

instead of

    function(x) x+1

not only saves a few keystrokes.

It will also produce shorter, and clearer, lines of code.

What I don’t understand is the reference to “formula syntax”. What is the issue and how does the new syntax solve it?

roenxiOP5y ago

Function syntax is this stuff [0, 1]. Tidyverse uses it to accomplish some non-model stuff. The one that leaps to my mind is faceting [2]. I'd expect that sort of thing to be handled by macros.

And all the rest of the comment I wouldn't have typed except I'm already replying, since I know this is one of those two-types-of-people-who-don't-change-opinions situations. But...

> not only saves a few keystrokes.

R is secretly a lisp. People can define whatever they want to be whatever they want. Pipes were already implemented in a library (try doing that in Python). Make your own library or bind \ to a keyboard macro or something if your fingers are on the point of crumbling under the stress of those 7 keystrokes.

Defaults using real words to describe things is good. The function to create a function being function() is eminently reasonable. \() is meaningless and about as useful as a one-word variable

> It will also produce shorter, and clearer, lines of code.

Opinons very much divide. Code length is only a proxy for load on a reader's short term memory which is what matters. \ is going to put more burden on someone if they aren't very familiar with R. Most R coders are not full time programmers and not very good at R.

[0] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.6.2/... [1] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/stats/versions/3.6.2... [2] http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Facets_(ggplot2)/

kgwgk5y ago

I know what formulas are, I just don’t see what’s the connection with the proposed change:

     ‘\(x) x + 1’ is parsed as ‘function(x) x + 1’

I also know that R has some vestigial scheme under the hood, but the syntax is not lisp (it was taken from S). In common lisp one could easily use a macro or reader macro but in R a change in the parser is needed so “\” can be used instead of “function”.

Note that the existing “f <- function(...) ...” syntax is not being removed. But I write a lot of code like

    state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, function(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))

and it will be an improvement to be able to condense it a bit to

    state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, \(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))

laretluval5y ago

If you’re worried about giving programmers too many options, R is already a nightmarish lost cause...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsroenxi5y ago0 comments

The anonymous function change is probably a (small) mistake.

    function(x) {x + 1}

is already logically equivalent to and from some perspectives an arguable syntax improvement on

    \(x) x + 1

Giving everyone two ways of doing one thing just means the tutorials will be fragmented and beginners even more confused.

0 comments

kgwgk5y ago

Having the option of writing

    \(x) x+1

instead of

    function(x) x+1

not only saves a few keystrokes.

It will also produce shorter, and clearer, lines of code.

What I don’t understand is the reference to “formula syntax”. What is the issue and how does the new syntax solve it?

roenxiOP5y ago

Function syntax is this stuff [0, 1]. Tidyverse uses it to accomplish some non-model stuff. The one that leaps to my mind is faceting [2]. I'd expect that sort of thing to be handled by macros.

And all the rest of the comment I wouldn't have typed except I'm already replying, since I know this is one of those two-types-of-people-who-don't-change-opinions situations. But...

> not only saves a few keystrokes.

Defaults using real words to describe things is good. The function to create a function being function() is eminently reasonable. \() is meaningless and about as useful as a one-word variable

> It will also produce shorter, and clearer, lines of code.

[0] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/base/versions/3.6.2/... [1] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/stats/versions/3.6.2... [2] http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Facets_(ggplot2)/

kgwgk5y ago

I know what formulas are, I just don’t see what’s the connection with the proposed change:

     ‘\(x) x + 1’ is parsed as ‘function(x) x + 1’

Note that the existing “f <- function(...) ...” syntax is not being removed. But I write a lot of code like

    state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, function(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))

and it will be an improvement to be able to condense it a bit to

    state.range <- apply(state.x77, 2, \(x) c(min(x), median(x), max(x)))

laretluval5y ago

If you’re worried about giving programmers too many options, R is already a nightmarish lost cause...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse